Editorial Viewpoints On Compensation Not Consistent

December 4, 1994

I applaud the suggestion in your editorial that fishermen who were financially hurt by the ban on net fishing be compensated. If government changes the rules, those who made a good faith investment depending on the previous set of rules should not bear the burden of the change.

Now then, tell me why you applauded the state Supreme Court when it struck from the ballot an amendment that would write that simple moral principle into the Constitution?

The private property protection amendment would have done just that: Require any government that changed the rules and made an individual's property worth less to compensate him. You harped on about the great danger that this would entail, possibly preventing government from acting.

If a rule change isn't supported by a public willing to pay the cost through taxation, then the rule should not be changed. It certainly shouldn't be paid for by some hapless individual who was unfortunate enough to own the wrong property.